craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) (03/07/88)
I don't normally post to can.politics, but I think this debate has missed some important points >I forget where this quotation ('quote' is *not* a noun!!!) came from, >but someone (well-known) said: > " Rent Control is the best way to destroy a city - > after bombing." I don't remember the name either, but it was a Swedish economist who had lived in Stockholm since the war, and seen the effects of it on that city. Another useful quotation, from a Toronto official last year: "There's plenty of low-income housing in Toronto. But Yuppies are living in it." *I* live in a $600/month *three bedroom* apartment with a nice bay window that looks out onto Spadina Avenue and U of T, just above a bookstore in the Annex. This is cheaper than dirt, and I make enough money to live somewhere else and leave this to a large family. But I won't. I won't leave because I can't be kicked out under Ontario law, and my rent can't be raised even to inflation levels without political crap that my landlord (a nice guy) has no time for. He's not bothering to do anything with the building, I even paint and maintain my apartment myself. When it falls down in ten years (it's ancient), you can be damn sure no apartment building will replace it. No low-income family will ever live here again. Nor can you, so don't even ask. :-) Someone also brought up that vacancy was dropping and rents were rising *before* rent control, and that in fact is *true*. But the reason is again political: zoning. Toronto has the most restrictive zoning laws in the *world*, and not coincidentally the easiest to bribe your way around, if you're Mr. Big Developer and have lawyers and friends. Since you have to bribe your way in to do *anything*, why not a big moneymaking office skyscraper downtown? Why waste all those lawyers' fees on a low income housing building, they're the same whether the building is a cash cow or not. It was the addition of these `startup fees' to any given building project that priced low-rent starts out of the market originally, in my opinion. >In short, rent control is a fundamentally warped policy (well, maybe the >intentions were good, but that doesn't make it *right*) designed only >to get votes from the lower classes. Agreed. Politicians always act in a manner that will expand their power, as rent control, zoning, subsidies and restrictions and regulations always do. Eventually they all must be killed or driven out in a revolution to start over. Another quote, hard to attribute again but I think it was Hume (someone eighteenth-century, anyway, the best century for philosophy): "Democracy lasts until the public realizes it can vote itself funds out of the public chest." Democracy would appear to have passed that point, at least in Canada. >Jan Sven. >Jan (Jan, from Amsterdam) no-hyphen Sven Trabandt >...!{allegro,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!oscvax!jan Craig Hubley, Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont. craig@Unicus.COM (Internet) {uunet!mnetor, utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!craig (dumb uucp) mnetor!unicus!craig@uunet.uu.net (dumb arpa)
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (03/07/88)
In article <2303@unicus.UUCP> craig@Unicus.COM (Craig D. Hubley) writes: >Someone also brought up that vacancy was dropping and rents were rising >*before* rent control, and that in fact is *true*. But the reason is >again political: zoning. Toronto has the most restrictive zoning laws >in the *world*, and not coincidentally the easiest to bribe your way >around Specifically, if one wants to add a deck to the roof of your garage, you have to apply for an get a variance to your zoning. This applies to almost any neighbourhood in Toronto proper, even if you have the only un-decked roof in the area (say, census tract). This is a **wonderfull** incentive to those who are into soliciting bribes: getting a variance can take weeks or years, depending on lord-knows-what. --dave (I won't live downtown) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) (03/08/88)
In article <2399@geac.UUCP>, daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: > Specifically, if one wants to add a deck to the roof of your > garage, you have to apply for an get a variance to your zoning. > This applies to almost any neighbourhood in Toronto proper, even > if you have the only un-decked roof in the area (say, census tract). Not only that, if you spend $10000 on installing your deck, paving your driveway, repainting your siding, and other home improvements the city will charge you more taxes than your neighbour who lets his house rot and spends the $10000 on vacations in Hawaii. I could understand a tax based on the area of land owned, the number of people that live or work there, or some such measure of how much your presence is costing the city (roads, utility access, garbage disposal, etc.), but basing municipal (and even worse, educational) taxes on how much one's buildings are worth is a ridiculous idea. > --dave (I won't live downtown) c-b But many people do prefer living downtown. That is one of the main reasons why the rents and land values are so high. What I don't understand, is why the poor, especially those with no jobs at all, tend to live downtown. For the rent many welfare recipients pay to live in a tiny room in downtown Toronto, they could afford a much larger and nicer place in a small town elsewhere. i.e. why do people, both rich and poor, seem to feel that the poor should live in areas where the free-market price of housing is naturally the highest?
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (03/09/88)
In article <17362@watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: | Not only that, if you spend $10000 on installing your deck, ... | the city will charge you more taxes than your neighbour who lets | his house rot and spends the $10000 on vacations in Hawaii. | | I could understand a tax based on the area of land owned, the | number of people that live or work there, or some such measure | of how much your presence is costing the city (roads, utility | access, garbage disposal, etc.), but basing municipal (and even | worse, educational) taxes on how much one's buildings are worth | is a ridiculous idea. Agreed. It is no longer a good enough indicator. What is a good indicator of cost-to-municipality? How do we work a switchover? -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (03/09/88)
In article <17362@watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: >But many people do prefer living downtown. That is one of the >main reasons why the rents and land values are so high. > >What I don't understand, is why the poor, especially those >with no jobs at all, tend to live downtown. For the rent many >welfare recipients pay to live in a tiny room in downtown Toronto, >they could afford a much larger and nicer place in a small town >elsewhere. i.e. why do people, both rich and poor, seem to feel >that the poor should live in areas where the free-market price of >housing is naturally the highest? Toronto's unemployment rate is quite low (~3.5%) - poor people tend to come here because they can get jobs here. It's much more difficult to find a job in a small town. And commuting is not an option for many, since it is expensive to operate a car and to pay for downtown parking. So down- town apartments, small as they may be, may still be the best choice for the poor. John -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John DiMarco Hard work never killed a man ... jdd@csri.toronto.edu ... but it sure has scared lots of them! {uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax,decwrl,ihnp4}!utcsri!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (03/10/88)
> And commuting is not an option for many, since > it is expensive to operate a car and to pay for downtown parking. So down- > town apartments, small as they may be, may still be the best choice for the > poor. Of course, increased transit subsidies would help here. They would also help people like me, who don't need the help. But *that* would reduce road traffic, which helps everybody. (Think about how many cars it takes to hold a busload of people.) Mark Brader "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out utzoo!sq!msb of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stagecoaches?" msb@sq.com -- The Quarterly Review (England), March 1825
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/15/88)
In article <2399@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: > Specifically, if one wants to add a deck to the roof of your >garage, you have to apply for an get a variance to your zoning. > This applies to almost any neighbourhood in Toronto proper, even >if you have the only un-decked roof in the area (say, census tract). > > This is a **wonderfull** incentive to those who are into >soliciting bribes: getting a variance can take weeks or years, >depending on lord-knows-what. Are you saying that bribery goes on in the Toronto municipal government, or merely that the system, as constituted, might permit it? (I'm referring to illegal bribery, not tradeoffs between builders and the city that are agreed to and that are for the city's benefit.) David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) (03/16/88)
In article <1988Mar14.201738.21165@lsuc.uucp> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <2399@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: >> Specifically, if one wants to add a deck to the roof of your >>garage, you have to apply for an get a variance to your zoning. >> This applies to almost any neighbourhood in Toronto proper, even >>if you have the only un-decked roof in the area (say, census tract). >> >> This is a **wonderfull** incentive to those who are into >>soliciting bribes: getting a variance can take weeks or years, >>depending on lord-knows-what. > >Are you saying that bribery goes on in the Toronto municipal >government, or merely that the system, as constituted, might >permit it? (I'm referring to illegal bribery, not tradeoffs >between builders and the city that are agreed to and that >are for the city's benefit.) I'll let Dave speak for himself, but since the system provides no rational criterion for such `variances' and since exceptions are common, and since legislators are human, and since very little is excluded from their jurisdiction, I think the system not only permits but *encourages* these illegal activities. Lack of rationality in law leads to lack of respect for law, and rightfully so. As to the more sophisticated bribery/coercion that goes on between builders and the city, `for the city's benefit': Either the things that are `forbidden' are genuinely bad, and thus should not be excepted, such as toxic waste dumps next to farms, or they are simply `bargaining tools' to be used to coerce builders into doing what politicians want done, based on arbitrary measurements that change every few years. Contributions to municipal politicians' war chests are only part of the transaction. I'll be the first to admit that urban planning is not an exact science, but using loophole-wracked regulations `for the city's benefit' is. Builders who seek exception to these rules pay out tremendous amounts of money to lawyers and lobbyists, arguing their case. This lets out the little guys right away, unless its something trivial. Furthermore, the lobbying situation itself requires legislation, including conflict of interest and the like. The end result of all this is to remove the decision-making power from the law, where it is at least stable and based on precedent and on judges, and give it to the politicians. It certainly does not end up in the hands of qualified urban planners, whose definition of `for the city's benefit', might actually be objective at least. There is simply no exclusion of dishonesty where there is no definition of honesty. And Toronto is such a place, when it comes to zoning laws. Legality is a side issue. Whether or not a particular tactic is legal changes day to day, as the regulations get more complex. Eventually, as I think is the case now, the regulations change faster than legal precedents can be set. This is a classic 20th-century problem, but the classic 20th-century solution: omnipotent bureacrats who are above reproach, is not acceptable to a society that wants the common man to have rights before the law. The massive tome that is Toronto's zoning law is not law at all. Lawyers don't debate it, lobbyists do. >David Sherman If anyone can come up with a rational justification for the `variance' that Dave C-B mentions above, I'd love to hear it. Until then, this stinks. Craig Hubley, Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont. craig@Unicus.COM (Internet) {uunet!mnetor, utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!craig (dumb uucp) mnetor!unicus!craig@uunet.uu.net (dumb arpa)
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (03/16/88)
>In article <2399@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: >> This is a **wonderfull** incentive to those who are into >>soliciting bribes: getting a variance can take weeks or years, >>depending on lord-knows-what. > In article <1988Mar14.201738.21165@lsuc.uucp> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >Are you saying that bribery goes on in the Toronto municipal >government, or merely that the system, as constituted, might >permit it? Neither. I'm saying that the structure of bylaw and enforcement is a real inducement to the dishonest to offer and accept bribes: We have a requirement for a special act of a city committee, without published guidelines or criteria and with no criteria inferrable by inspection from outside. We also have a very large variation in the time required to get such a special action taken, and no way of inferring from outside why one case is different from another, apparently equivalent one. If I was dishonest, I would welcome this: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are wonderfull tools for the dishonest and/or unethical. And no, I do not know first-hand is bribes actually change hands, nor am I particularly inclined to speculate. --dave (I'm not a cynic, I just used to deal with IBM) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (03/16/88)
Someone earlier mentioned that they used to believe that the rental crisis was was caused by rent control before they read an article in the paper (G&M or Star) which stated that rent controls were introduced *because* of a lack of affordable housing. Well, I think I read the same article and I don't recall a vacancy rate being quoted for the pre-rent control days. Seems to me that back in the good old days (1974????) a vacancy rate of 1% may have been considered a "crisis". Since the vacancy rate is now a tiny 0.1% that would mean that the rental crunch has become 10 times *worse* since the introduction of rent controls. So, anyone out there know just what the vacancy rate was back then, or are we all just shooting in the dark???? J.B. Robinson